Elder Ballard told a YSA audience that the men should look at all the beautiful women around them, and he told the women that they should “not look like men” and to put on some lipstick, adding “it’s not that hard.” #malegaze

The Salt Lake Tribune noted that one church committee still lacks any female input or involvement: the correlation committee, responsible for creating church manuals. That seems like a pretty big gap. #allmalepanel

So let’s pull up a few thousand feet and look at the big picture here.

What’s Not So Encouraging

Aside from being quoted in the Mother in Heaven article as using the term “Heavenly Parents,” E. Ballard seems to be straight up old school sexist, incapable of opening his mouth without cracking a sexist joke or objectifying women. Maybe it’s time someone had a friendly chat with him about not creating a hostile environment for women in the church. While his crack about men not noticing women got some laffs, note the awkward silence after he takes a dig at the supposedly unattractive (but for a little make-up) spinsters. The audience does give in to laughter eventually, though, to their discredit. It’s certainly not the first time I’ve heard a sexist joke from the pulpit, unfortunately; sexist jokes are all too common in Mormonism. I don’t consider it a very high form of humor, an accurate depiction, or at all spiritually edifying. I’m glad E. Ballard is trying to keep his audience awake. I’m not glad that he doesn’t see why these comments are mean-spirited and unfunny.

Aside from this, it’s a bit discouraging to see just how little fulfilled the vision of Joseph Smith seems to be. Women were giving healing blessings in his day, and are now barred from even holding a baby during its blessing in most wards. Emma was elected by the women of Nauvoo to be the president of the Relief Society whereas now all women are appointed by men and serve at their leisure for a limited time with all decisions including budgetary oversight ratified by men.

And although the essay points out how “remarkably constant” the relationship between women and priesthood has been since Joseph Smith’s day, it does so after pointing out just how much has been taken away from the women of the church. Yes, the Relief Society still exists, but it has definitely swerved in terms of autonomy and empowerment.

The essay on Mother in Heaven by contrast was pretty light on content:

our present knowledge about a Mother in Heaven is limited. Nevertheless, we have been given sufficient knowledge to appreciate the sacredness of this doctrine and to comprehend the divine pattern established for us as children of heavenly parents.

Limited knowledge about our Heavenly Mother is apparently sufficient, and yet as recently as 2013 General Conference, E. Bednar spoke of procreation as being modeled by the creative power of the Father and Son, not by our Heavenly Parents:

“Our Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son are creators and have entrusted each of us with a portion of their creative power.”

Right.

And while we’re adding women to councils, not including women in the correlation committee seems like a huge omission that goes a long way toward explaining why our manuals sound a lot like men explaining things to women, including things like chastity that really could use a woman’s perspective.

What’s Encouraging

Even though the Mother in Heaven essay is thin, it’s an opening salvo paving the way for open discussion of Her, and more open seeking of Her. Given that we apparently had little curiosity about Her to now, why would we want to codify what little we do know at present? This is a new seedling of hope. This also immediately invites more use of the term Heavenly Parents where appropriate rather than just Heavenly Father. Embracing our doctrine of a Heavenly Mother signals a willingness to clarify a doctrine that is unique to us among Christian sects; we’re not trying to fit in with the strange bedfellows of the religious right, where we aren’t wanted anyway. We’re proud to be different in this doctrine, and I’m proud of us for it.

In the essay on Joseph Smith’s vision of the priesthood, most of what is encouraging is what isn’t said. Priesthood isn’t equated with motherhood. Women aren’t said to be separate but equal (which always means not equal). And the ban on women holding priesthood office is implied to originate in historical cultural norms, not the Bible (a claim which doesn’t hold water). It leaves the door open for future changes.

As in most other Christian denominations during this era, Latter-day Saint men alone held priesthood offices . . . like most other Christians in their day, Latter-day Saints in the early years of the Church reserved public preaching and leadership for men.

The essay is consistent with E. Oaks’ remarks about women operating under delegated priesthood power in callings, including leadership callings, rather than being directly ordained to offices in the priesthood.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

Published by hawkgrrrl

Hawkgrrrl has been blogging since March 2008, publishing hundreds of opinion pieces. She is a wife and mother of three, a business executive, a returned missionary, and is active in her LDS ward. She likes oil painting, reading, theater, and international travel.
View all posts by hawkgrrrl

My favorite part of the JSTATPTAW and women was this: “Women’s participation in healing blessings gradually declined in the early 20th century as Church leaders taught that it was preferable to follow the New Testament directive to “call for the elders.”

Translation: Yeah, Brother Joseph endorsed the practice, but despite any revelation he might have had or expansive doctrine this new age may have proffered we’ll just roll it back to something a little older just to be safe.

All this circumlocution about women having/not having priesthood (authority/power/blessings/insert word de jour here), speaking up but not too much, asserting themselves but not assuming a role that’s not theirs…feels very much like putting lipstick on a patriarchal pig.

Ironically, there was a time when wearing make-up was frowned upon. At least as early as J. Golden Kimball, leaders have encouraged make-up. Although it’s not a mandate in current missionary standards, it’s preferential: “You are not required to wear makeup; however, wearing makeup can help you look your best. If you choose to wear makeup, be sure that it is natural and conservative in style and color.” I don’t wear lipstick, but I’m already married. Elder Ballard probably wouldn’t consider it as big of a deal.

As for the rest of it. Ugh. We’re making progress. Up until a few months ago we couldn’t even state that women were part of the highest executive councils of the church. I laughed when that was made a point in the women/priesthood essay of proof how we value our women. I do consider the recent essays a net positive. The point of the gospel topics essays are to clarify the church’s current official position and to provide historical context where helpful. They are really nice when we have been fed conflicting speculation by church leaders in the past. The priesthood/motherhood folklore has a deep root in our culture. I was very happy that did not make an appearance in the priesthood essay.

I really appreciated many of the points made here. I had not heard about the leak, and it offered an interesting viewpoint. But the logic of the arguments are weakened by the hyperbole.

I do not think that Elder Ballard deserves to be labelled as a sexist on the basis of one clip. He may have made a wince-worthy sexist statement. But frankly, I have winced when reading comments at W&T that casually refer to married women as “girls.”

Elder Ballard’s track record is so much more than that. He won my heart with his April 2008 conference address, “Daughters of God.”

I loved that he acknowledged our diversity:
“There is no one perfect way to be a good mother. Each situation is unique. Each mother has different challenges, different skills and abilities, and certainly different children. The choice is different and unique for each mother and each family.”

And also that he encourage us to develop talents.
“…sisters, find some time for yourself to cultivate your gifts and interests. Pick one or two things that you would like to learn or do that will enrich your life, and make time for them. Water cannot be drawn from an empty well, and if you are not setting aside a little time for what replenishes you, you will have less and less to give to others, even to your children.”

As one who enjoys her profession, that was great to hear.

I call bullshit on the claim that women are “never in a position in which men must listen to them.” We’ve gone over this before, that there are various callings in the church where men do report to women. If you want to claim this is true in a certain setting, fine. But “never” is a broad brush, and it doesn’t paint truth in this instance.

I think that, while the essay on Heavenly Mother isn’t perfect, the phrase The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother is a cherished and distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints is worth the price of admission. No longer can anyone say, “well, that isn’t really doctrine, it’s just some people’s opinion.”

A step forward, in my opinion; both essays represent attempts by the Church to deal with the current discontent about women’s roles without going the direction of radical change. We should be grateful for the progress, and of course keep pushing for more.

Naismith, OK, I have come up with a few callings in which men are under women: male Primary teachers, male cub scout leaders, male nursery workers were under me when I was the nursery leader, male choir members and organists under a female chorister or choir director. Fair enough.

The comments about women’s appearance are apparently a normal part of E. Ballard’s schtick. He also commented a few years ago that some of the women in the audience looked like “death warmed over,” and in the 90s, he made this same remark about women looking like men, and one in the audience wrote him a letter about how hurt she was by his remarks. He called her in and personally apologized to her. But here we go again. So long as congregations will reward this type of “humor” with laughter, speakers will keep making these kinds of cracks.

My reason for considering him a straight up old school sexist is more related to his remarks that women should speak up in meetings “but not too much.” This is the standard playbook of how to create a no win situation for women in business. Speak up, but not too much. Be attractive, but not too sexy. Wear makeup, but only a conservative amount. Be friendly, but not forward. The narrow band of acceptable behavior for women as defined by men makes it difficult to feel confident, heard or respected. I say “old school” because I suspect he has unquestioned assumptions about women, and his disdain for “uppity” women has been evident by his actions.

The Church is a benevolent patriarchy, and Elder Ballard’s comments are a product of that and his cultural upbringing. It will likely change through generational replacement.

The Church leadership seems to believe that marriage at a young age, in the temple, and not putting off children, is the key to future growth. That may be right, though the strategy is itself problematic. But these comments, focused on dating and outward appearance, really seem to misdiagnose the causes that young people are delaying marriage and so many women never marry.

Lipstick is not going to fix the demographic imbalances, or make higher education more affordable. I’m worried for when my kids reach college age, because the transition from youth into adulthood seems much more fraught and challenging than even fifteen years ago.

On the subject of sexist jokes, I remember several times in my youth when sexist jokes were made from the pulpit in church or front of the classroom in seminary. Although given in jest these jokes were often backed up by scripture. I thought nothing of it until I made a similar joke at work and I was called out on it. I’m so glad now I was called out on it, because I have since then had an entirely different perspective of on how these jokes make people feel.

It’s true that my joke that day was my own poor judgement, but I wonder how much of that judgement is attributable to growing up in the church where it was rewarded with laughter.

Surely Church HQ reads these blogs and hears these things. If not, send it to them. Elder Ballard is a man of his generation steeped in his culture and tradition. Give him a copy of this and he’ll be more aware of how he comes across. He is humble enough that he will care to improve so as not to offend.
What was considered funny long ago, isn’t always today.They know that. We all do and yet we err often trying to impart some lightheartedness when people are up in arms. His talk that was mentioned above, was done superbly and kindly trying to unite, not divide women in how they may or may not do things.
And as much as I adore Thomas Monson, I cringed at a comment he once made in GC with regard to his cooking skills. Frances was in the hospital and had told their children, ‘whatever you do, don’t let your dad near the stove or oven’, I believe it was. No, Frances would have found it comforting to know, at least in her absence, that he will get a meal together for their family–as well as when she came home from the hospital. And who really knows that he wasn’t just making a joke that played well for his generation but did those things quite naturally as kind as he is known to be.

mem, your story reminded me of the story shared in by E. Christofferson about how his mother had surgery that made her cry out in pain when she ironed. His dad saved up money for a year to buy her a special ironing machine: “Dad told her that he had gone without lunches for nearly a year to save enough money. “Now when you iron,” he said, “you won’t have to stop and go into the bedroom and cry until the pain in your arm stops.” She didn’t know he knew about that. I was not aware of my father’s sacrifice and act of love for my mother at the time, but now that I know, I say to myself, “There is a man.””

When I heard that story, I too thought “There is a man,” but I don’t think I thought it the same way. Here’s a sacrifice to try on for size, men: iron your own damn shirts!

Before we get too wound up over the Christofferson story, we all know that spouses fall into roles. My wife has never ironed a shirt of mine in 33 years of marriage. My mother in law used to take her to task over it, but I never gave it a moment’s thought. On the other hand, I mow the yard. She usually cooks dinner. When the kids were younger, I’m the one who cleaned up the vomit when the kids got sick. She breast fed. I unclog toilets. She remembers birthday. And on and on. Most couples fall into complimentary tasks, so ironing shirts (and other clothes) might not be a big deal. Thirty plus years ago, all clothes were ironed regularly. Now, except for a couple of white shirts of mine, we never do any ironing, nor do we take clothes to the dry cleaner. Different age and different circumstances don’t warrant a blanket condemnation.

IDIAT,
I agree that in a marriage different tasks are often done by a particular spouse, but if that task causes a person daily pain obviously something needs to be reworked. For example, I do all the laundry in my house. Because I am short, when I am pregnant it is extremely difficult for me to get the clothes out of the top loading washer. It’s not absolutely impossible (I could climb on a chair and try not to topple over into the washing machine), but it’s difficult enough that continuing to do it is unreasonable. So, while during the last half of my two pregnancies, my husband took over the laundry.
I am aware that things were different when this story took place, but I do think it is not a good idea to use this type of story as an example of a good husband. Yes, he went without lunch for nearly a year. What this means is that his wife was in excruciating pain every time she ironed for nearly a year. Let’s not hold that up as our standard to strive for.

Like the Monson story illustrated, our church also allows women to make sexist comments. I’d say women have even more leeway to make sexist comments, as it confirms why they belong on that pedestal. I once felt compelled to do a gender sensitivity spiel in a GD class after we’d had boy vs. girl fight the previous week. It started with a woman making a wildly sexist comment. A younger guy called her out on it and everything hit the fan.